Tell me what you think of this diamond

[tlow]

Hey Guys,

1.13 Carat AGS000

Without telling you all the specs, please tell me what you think of this diamond based on the pics?

 

[pricescope]

Tlow, please post your pictures as attachments to the posts in this thread...

 

[tlow]

arrows...

 

[tlow]

arrows...

 

[tlow]

hearts...

 

[belle]

not a true h&a.

 

[tlow]

I am not terribly excited about the cloud in the middle of the diamond...

 

[belle]

what is the clarity? i see inclusions at 3 & 7 as well

 

[tlow]

color: H
clarity: SI1

 

[belle]

okay...well that's about all i can tell from one diamond photo and a few h&a pics.
i could maybe take a stab and say 57% table and 85% lgf's with 55% stars but that's all i got.

 

[Shay37]

Oh, man. Those hearts are hurting my eyes. Arrows look great. I agree with Belle not a true H & A. I think she's right on the table, but I'm going to guess a little shorter on the LGFs maybe 79ish. That's all I've got.

shay

Edited: it's hard to type with my tongue firmly in cheek, but I tried. Seriously, those hearts do need help.

 

[Regular Guy]

I''d be interested in hearing what other diamond experts have to say. Inclusions aside, which could be reason to pass...and even though it may not be the dream of H&A documented here as "true" H&A...

the pattern of H&A is unmistakable
the PGS has here posted significantly worse and called it a pattern of H&A
the point of H&A is to show the alignment of planes and such, in a way that suggests to me the diamond is pretty tightly constructed, based on the hearts pictured.

If WF, maybe they''d only call it expert selection, and it would I suspect be very beautiful.

Just a suggestion that....ahem....going way out on the Belle curve, you might get more picky than is ideally required (how''s that for double entendre?).

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I agree that even though it may not be a perfect H&A, it IS and AGS0, so it would be a diamond worth buying at a fair price. I''d have to have some assurance about the inclusion being totally eyeclean, though.